To:
"'Jaap Akkerhuis'" <jaap@sidn.nl>, Geva Patz <geva@bbn.com>
Cc:
"'provreg List'" <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:56:01 -0500
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: domreg BOF Meeting Minutes
Jaap, I am really hoping that someone (or multiple someones) will take the time to point out the specific text that they feel encroaches on policy issues. We've found one situation, minimum registration period. If you know of others please post them to the list. Scott Hollenbeck VeriSign Global Registry Services -----Original Message----- From: Jaap Akkerhuis [mailto:jaap@sidn.nl] Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 10:36 AM To: Geva Patz Cc: 'provreg List' Subject: Re: domreg BOF Meeting Minutes Geza, On Wed, Dec 20, 2000 at 10:06:48AM -0500, J. William Semich wrote: > Many (the majority?) of the ccTLDs require a minimum two-year initial > registration period. Precisely my point. Minimum and maximum initial periods and renewal periods are all policy issues, not protocol issues. The protocol should allow policy to be expressed, but shouldn't dictate policy through design limitations. We shouldn't even mandate that registrations need expire: although the contrary is true only in a small minority of cases, we should nonetheless cater for these cases, particularly if we envisage the protocol potentially being used to register other classes of objects (AS registrations, for instance, don't expire). The protocol should allow an expiry date to be specified, but shouldn't require it, and certainly shouldn't constrain it to one-year resolution. You beat me in time, but this is also my point. In the GRRP draft are more places where were policy issues are specified as protocol issues. Talking to the German ccTLD peole, they had the same problem with the draft; policy issues are mixed with the protocol issues. It might be natural for someone from NSI/Verisign to mix them in, but if you have a different policy, one tends to notice this. jaap